Infiltrado

The previously posted comment for this film would have successfully steered me away from it... If I weren't such a huge fan of "Criminal Intent" (Vincent D'Onofrio) and "Monk" (Tony Shalhoub) that I had to see it anyway.

I wondered throughout the movie, "Is this guy (Gary Sinise) a robot or NOT???" The sets and direction (not to mention the performances of Gary Sinise and Vincent D'Onofrio, which were intense) sucked me in. D'Onofrio makes a fabulous driven investigator. Shalhoub's role was small, but I was too busy grooving on the plot to care. My one regret in the performances is that Madeline Stowe didn't have much to do, except alternate between the roles of a stereotypical uber-doctor and a limpid, grieving wife. The one scene that hints at her acting talent occurs when she confronts her husband at the abandoned park.

Granted, the film does start out like it's going to be typical sci-fi schlock, but once it was past the first 15 minutes, I almost forgot it's science fiction.

The bottom line: This movie WORKED for me! 9 / 10 stars

Like Total Recall, Impostor was based on a short story by Phillip K. Dick. (Dick's stories were also the inspiration for Blade Runner and Minority Report.) In my opinion Impostor is a solid science fiction film.

The core of these stories by Dick has to do with the nature of reality and Impostor is no exception. If we have memories implanted in our minds, how can we tell what is real and what is an artificial memory? Added to this in the movie is the change in a society that comes from years of war. Can we have freedom and human rights when anyone can be a spy? This combines two great traditions in sci-fi; illusion vs. reality (Total Recall) meets taking over our minds and bodies by an alien power (Invasion of the Body Snatchers).

Add to the great story concepts is superior acting by Gary Sinise and Madeleine Stowe. The supporting cast is good with Vincent D'Onofrio playing a complex character. Is he a villain? Nothing is as it seems.

With all of these positive comments, I cannot give the film a 10/10. This is a low budget film which first started as a short film and grew into a feature. While the story of Impostor IMHO is superior in some ways to Minority Report and much better than typical sci-fi, the lack of money for Impostor shows.

The director, Gary Fleder is no Speilberg, Ridley Scott or even Paul Verhoeven. Sometimes the pace of the film seemed to need tighter editing. The script in the central part of the film could have used more work to learn more about this world. And the music was just ok in supporting the action and emotion of the film.

Still Miramax was right to decide on making this a feature film rather than a short subject or straight to TV film. Impostor has some great sci-fi story ideas and good performances. 8.5/10

5.5 out of 10

Impostor was the first of 2002's futuristic thrillers (the other two being Minority Report and the Equilibrium) and it's also easily the weakest, which is no surprise when you consider this is essentially nothing more than a blown-up short film. Not surprisingly, critics were harsh on this one, and while many of the complaints are valid, Impostor is still a bit better than its reputation.

The film's concept, that of a seemingly normal man accused of being a replicant, is a fascinating one, but it's unfortunately drowned by director Gary Fleder's obsession with shaky camera movements and quick cuts. The script, written by a committee (or at least a group of people who had a hand in it), suffers from too many logical flaws to fully work as the cerebral sci-fi it obviously aspires to be. Most importantly, the question of identity and what it means to be human is never fully addressed and only touched upon briefly.

But flawed as the film is, the cast is solid, with Sinise delivering yet again another terrific performance, and the special effects are actually convincing (the cityscapes are genuinely awe-inspiring). The movie's fast pace ensures it's never dull and there are even a few exciting action sequences (most notably the hospital fight/chase). But best of all is the climactic plot twist, a no-holds barred surprise that boosts the film up a notch. As a whole, the movie is mostly middling, but there are enough inspired moments to make this an enjoyable viewing.

This movie has a low rating for a lot of very good reasons. The main user comment on the IMDb home page (at least as of now as I write this, John DeSando's) spells them out well. It's a failure.

But--there's a real gem here. What happened was, they set out to make a short, the studio liked it for good reason, had the film makers expand it to a feature-length film, and the end product was the dog of film that failed with critics and audiences and goes down in history as a big collection of mistakes.

But if you rent the DVD, the original short is on there. It's well worth renting just for that. It's riveting, tense and provocative. Really ALL the problems users such as John DeSando rightfully point out (quoting him "a plot twist you can see all the way from Mars....The plot holes are as many as dot our own moon....") are in the parts of the feature-length version that are added.

Rent the DVD. Go right to the short. Skip the long version. Too bad the stupid studio had to ruin something good. (Shocking, I know--a movie studio took something good and tried to milk it for more and ended up spoiling it. Hard to believe, but true.)

This movie, which time will no doubt prove to be a sleeper, was well put together. The sets look good, and with the exception of the silly looking transport ship in the beginning of the movie, the props and costumes are also well done. I'm surprised that this movie didn't do better in the theaters, given the cast - which all perform marvelously. My favorite part about this movie is the way it explores a Dick theme that Blade Runner fans will no doubt recognize: What makes us human?